19 N.Y.3d 970 (2012)

Communications between a prosecutor and jury are considered ministerial, and do not violate People v. O’Rama, when they concern logistical aspects of a readback and are unrelated to substantive legal or factual issues.

Summary

Defendant Calvin Mays was convicted of robbery. During jury deliberations, the jury requested to re-watch a surveillance video entered as evidence. The prosecutor played the video, and during this process, jurors made requests related to the viewing conditions (e.g., dimming lights, freezing the frame). The defense argued that this interaction violated People v. O’Rama because the judge did not give counsel notice and an opportunity to be heard before the prosecutor responded to the jury’s requests. The New York Court of Appeals held that the prosecutor’s communications were ministerial, did not implicate O’Rama, and the conviction was affirmed.

Facts

Calvin Mays was charged with robbery and related offenses arising from two armed robberies. A surveillance video of one robbery was admitted as evidence during his trial. The jury requested to see the video again during deliberations. The prosecutor replayed the video, slowing it down and projecting it onto a screen. Jurors made requests such as reducing glare, replaying the video, and freezing the view, which the prosecutor accommodated.

Procedural History

The jury acquitted Mays of charges related to the videotaped robbery but convicted him of robbery for the other crime. He was sentenced as a persistent violent felony offender. The Appellate Division rejected Mays’s argument that the interaction with the jury violated People v. O’Rama. A dissenting Justice granted Mays leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether the trial judge committed an O’Rama error by allowing the prosecutor to interact directly with the jury while replaying the surveillance video, without prior notice to defense counsel, when the interactions concerned logistical requests about the viewing of the evidence.

Holding

No, because the prosecutor’s communications with the jury were ministerial and did not concern substantive legal or factual issues related to the trial.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order. The Court reasoned that although defense counsel was aware of the jurors’ comments, made aloud in court, they did not object to the judge’s or prosecutor’s responses. The Court emphasized that the prosecutor’s communications were merely ministerial, such as adjusting the lights or attempting to stop the video at a specific point requested by the jury. These actions did not constitute the kind of substantive response that triggers O’Rama. The court stated that “Asking that the lights be dimmed because a juror was bothered by the glare, playing the video again once they were, or attempting to stop the video at the place the jurors wished is not the kind of substantive response that implicates O’Rama.” Preservation was required because the error was not considered an O’Rama violation. The Court also rejected the argument that the trial judge improperly delegated judicial responsibility, noting the judge was present and participating throughout the video replay. The Court added the defendant was acquitted of all charges stemming from the videotaped robbery, further diminishing the impact of the alleged error.